Eadweard (Edward) "the Elder"

King of the West Saxons, 899-924.
King of the Mercians, ca. 918-924.

Eadweard witnesses a Kentish charter of Ælfred
the Great as king in 898 ["Eadweard rex" Cart.
Sax., 2: 220 (#576)]. When Ælfred died in October 899, he was
succeeded by his son Eadweard (Edward) "the Elder"
["Her gefor Ælfred ... & þa feng Eadweard his sunu
to rice." ASC(A) s.a. 901 (orig. 900) ("Here
died Alfred ... And then Edward, his son, succeeded to the
kingdom." ASC(Eng), 91-2); ASC(E) s.a. 901; "Huic
filius successit Eadwardus, cognomento Senior" John
Worc., s.a. 901 (1: 117)]. Eadweard was crowned on Whitsunday, 8
June 900 ["Successor equidem tum monarchiæ Eaduuerdus
post filius supra memorati regis coronatur ipse stemate regali a
primatis electus pentecostes in die, ..." Æthelweard,
50-1]. Eadweard's reign was marked by continued progress against
the Danes, in cooperation with his sister Æthelflæd and her
husband Æthelred, leader of the Mercians. When Æthelflæd died
in 918, her daughter Ælfwynn was deprived of control in Mercia
[ASC(C) s.a. 918, 919 (Mercian Register)].When Eadweard died in
924 [see below], he was succeeded by his son Æthelstan, perhaps
after a short reign by his son Ælfweard [see below]. Eadweard's
nickname of "the Elder" is not contemporary, but was
assigned later to distinguish him from the two other Anglo-Saxon
kings of that name. [For the chronology of Eadweard's reign, see
Angus (1938); Wainwright (1945); Vaughan (1954)]

Date of birth: say ca. 872.
Place of birth: Unknown.Eadweard was the second surviving
child of a marriage which occurred in 868, according to Asser
[Asser, c. 29 (pp. 23-4)]. Thus, the given estimate should not be
off by much.

Date of death: 17 July 924.Place of
death: Farndon, Mercia.Place of
burial: Winchester.Eadweard's date of death is given
as 17 July by the Liber Vitae of Hyde [Lib. Vit. Hyde, 6], and by
a fragment of an English calendar of the beginning of the twelfth
century from St. Évroul [Robinson (1923), 32, n. 1]. As for the
year, arguments have been given in favor of both 924 and 925.
Stubbs concluded that 924 was the correct year [Intro. to Mem.
Dunstan, lxxiv]. Plummer noted the problem, but did not reach a
definite conclusion [notes to ASC 2: 132-3]. Both were hindered
by their incorrect belief that king Æthelstan died on 27 October
940. Beaven established the correct date of Æthelstan's death as
27 October 939, and argued for 925 as the date of death of
Eadweard [Beaven (1917)]. Robinson argued for 924 as the date,
and his arguments have received wide acceptance [Robinson (1923),
27-36]. At first glance, the versions of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle appear to split down the middle between 924 and
925, with C and D giving 924, A and F giving 925, and E giving
both 924 and 925. However, the Parker (A) Chronicle originally
said 924 ["Her Eadweard cing forþferde, &
Æþelstan his sunu feng to rice." ASC(A) s.a. 925
(orig. 924); similarly ASC(E) s.a. 924, ASC(F) s.a. 925; on the
changes that were made to the Parker Chronicle, see Vaughan
(1954)]. Independently, the Mercian Register, represented by
manuscript C (and more distantly by D), which appears to have a
correct chronology on those occasions in which it can be checked
[see Wainwright (1945)], also gives 924 ["Her Eadweard
cing gefor on Myrcum æt Fearndune. & Ælfwerd his sunu
swiðe hraðe þæs géfór. æt Oxnaforda. & hira lic lið
æt Wintanceastre." ASC(C) s.a. 924 ("Here
King Edward died at Farndon in Mercia; and very soon after that
his son Ælfweard died at Oxford; and their bodies lie at
Winchester." ASC(Eng), 105); similarly in ASC(D) s.a.
924 (see below under Ælfweard)]. Thus, since F was copied from A
after the date had been changed to 925, and E has little weight
(giving both dates), the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle favors
924. Arguing in favor of 925, Beaven noted that the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle attributes a reign of 14 years and 10 weeks to
Æthelstan ["& Æþelstan cyning rixade .xiiii. gear
& .x. wucan." ASC(A) s.a. 941 (orig. 940); ASC(D)
s.a. 940; Beaven (1917), 522]. A similar period is given several
manuscripts of the West Saxon regnal list, in which one
manuscript gives 14 years, 10 weeks, one gives 14 years, 7 weeks,
and two manuscripts give the rather precise period of 14 years, 7
weeks, and 3 days [Dumville (1986), 29-30]. Counting back seven
weeks and three days from Æthelstan's date of death (27 October
939) calculates out to 5 September, which (including the fourteen
years) is only one day off from 4 September 925, the date given
for the consecration of Æthelstan as king in a dubious charter
[Cart. Sax. 2: 317 (#641)]. However, as noted by Robinson,
several charters of Æthelstan having regnal dates argue strongly
in favor of 17 July 924 as Eadweard's date of death [Robinson
(1923), 33-6]. Two charters of 929 state that Æthelstan was in
his sixth year, placing his accession no later than 924 [Cart.
Sax. 2: 344 (#665), 345 (#666)]. Several charters of Æthelstan
indicate an accession of no later than 17 July 925, two of them
indicating no later than 26 January 925 [year 6, 5 Apr. 930:
Cart. Sax. 2: 349 (#669); y. 6, 29 Apr. 930: Crawford Charters, 6
(#4), Cart. Sax. 3: 681 (#1343); y. 7, 23 March 931: ibid., 2:
359 (#674); y. 7, 21 June 931: ibid., 2: 361 (#675); y. 9, 26
Jan. 933: ibid., 2: 393 (#695), 395 (#696); y. 10, 28 May 934:
ibid., 2: 403 (#702)]. Other charters tend to indicate that he
was not yet reigning late in 924 [y. 1, 4 Sep. 925 (consecration
day): ibid., 2: 317 (#641); y. 7, 12 Nov. 931: ibid., 2: 364
(#677); y. 8, 30 Aug. 932: ibid., 2: 379 (#689); y. 8, 24 Dec.
932: ibid., 2: 384 (#691), 387 (#692)]. Although these charters
might not all be genuine, they seem remarkably consistent. Not
counting the two charters without an exact date, these charters
would, taken together, indicate a date of accession for
Æthelstan between 25 December 924 and 26 January 925. Not
included above were several possibly misdated charters [e.g.,
Cart. Sax. 2: 400 (#700), 402 (#701), 406 (#706), 423 (#716), 427
(#719)]. In addition, there are two charters (both listed as
dubious by Kemble) which do not fall into the above picture. A
charter of 16 April 928 is said to be in the third year of
Æthelstan, which would apparently imply that he began to reign
no earlier that 17 April 925 ["Ego Adel[s]tanus donifluo
Dei gubernamine rex Anglorum . Anno dominicæ incarnationis
.DCCCC.XXVIII. mei haut dubium regiminis tercio . Indictione .I.
epacta . XXVI . XVI . K'l Mai luna .XXI." Cart. Sax. 2:
340 (#663)]. Here, we have the strange insertion of "haut
dubium" ("not at all doubtful", "there
is no doubt"), suggested by Robinson to refer to a time
sometime in 925 when Æthelstan's claim to be king was put beyond
all question [Robinson (1923), 35]. In fact, Æthelstan's
coronation apparently did not occur until 4 September 925.
Perhaps this charter was dated by his coronation, as well as
another charter, from 930, dated both by his fifth year and his
third year in Northumbria [Cart. Sax. 2: 346-7 (#667)].
Nevertheless, as indicated above, there are enough charters to
clearly indicate that Æthelstan had become king before 17 July
925. Given the indications from two apparently independent
sources that Eadweard died on 17 July, we can safely date his
death on 17 July 924.

(2) m. bef. 901, Ælfflæd,
d. 918, daughter of ealdorman Æthelhelm.
Ælfflæd appears in a charter of Eadweard in 901 ["Eadward
rex. Ealhswið mater regis. Elffled conjux regis."
Cart. Sax. 2: 234 (#589)]. The death of Ælfflæd is noted by Annales
Cambriae, two years after the death of Anarawd ap Rhodri
Mawr ["Aelfled regina obiit." AC s.a 917
("Edfled", B; "Edelflet",
C)]. Since Anarawd appears to have died in 916 [CS s.a 915=916],
the death of Ælfflæd most probably occurred in 918 rather than
917. [The date 917 is editorial, and has no manuscript
authority.] Based on a statement of Hrotsvith of Gandersheim, it
has been suggested that Ælfflæd was a descendant of king
Osweald of Bernicia (d. 642) [see below under her daughter
Eadgyth]. Ælflæd's father Æthelhelm has sometimes been
identified as the known son of king Æthelred I of that name, but
there appears to be nothing to support this beyond the
coincidence of the name.

Æthelstan, d. 27 October 939, king of
Wessex and Mercia (king of England) 924×5-939.According to most of his charters which
show a regnal year, Æthelstan appears to have dated his reign
from a point which started somewhere between 25 December 924 and
26 January 925 [see above under Eadweard's date of death]. Since
Eadweard had died the previous July, this suggests a longer than
average succession period, which may have included a short reign
in Wessex by Æthelstan's brother Ælfweard [Wm. Malmes., Gesta
Regum, c. 139 (1: 156); see below under Ælfweard].
According to a dubious charter, Æthelstan was crowned on 4
September 925 [Cart. Sax. 2: 317 (#641)]. He died on 27 October
939 and was succeeded by his brother Eadmund ["Her
Æþelstan cyning forðferde on .vi. kl. Nov. ymbe .xl. wintra
butan anre niht þæs þe Ælfred cyning forþferde; &
Eadmund æþeling feng to rice. & he wæs þa .xviii. wintre.
& Æþelstan cyning rixade .xiiii. gear & .x. wucan."
ASC(A) s.a. 941 (orig. 940) (".xli." altered
to ".xl.") ("Here King Athelstan
passed away on 27 October, 40 years all but a day after King
Alfred passed away. And the ætheling Edmund succeeded to the
kingdom; and he was then 18 years old. King Athelstan ruled 14
years and 10 weeks." ASC(Eng), 110); "Her
Æðelstan cyning forðferde. & feng Ædmund to rice his
broðor." ASC(E) s.a. 940; "Strenuus et
gloriosus rex Anglorum Æthelstanus, decimo sexto regni sui anno,
indictione XIV., vi. kal. Novembris, feria IV., apud Glawornam e
vita decessit, et ad Maidulfi urbem delatus, honorifice est
tumulatus; cui frater suus Eadmundus, XVIIIº. ætatis suæ anno,
in regnum successit." John Worc., s.a. 940 (1: 132-3);
"27 [Oct.] Obitus Æþelstani regis." Lib.
Vit. Hyde, 272; AU s.a. 938=939; on 939 as the year of
Æthelstan's death, see Beaven (1917); Vaughan (1954)].

By Ecgwynn or
Ælfflæd:

NN (Eadgyth?), d. Pollesbury, 15 July;
m. 925×6, Sitric (Sigtryggr), d. 927, king of
Dublin and York.["Her Æþelstan cyning &
Sihtric Norðhymbra cyng heo gesamnodon æt Tameweorðþige. iii.
k. Februarius. & Æþelstan his sweostor him forgeaf."
ASC(D) s.a. 925 ("Here King Athelstan and Sihtric, king
of Northumbria, assembled at Tamworth on 30 January, and
Athelstan gave him his sister." ASC(Eng), 105); "Strenuus
et gloriosus rex Anglorum Æthelstanus sororem suam, cum magno
honore et gloria, Northhymbrorum regi Sihtrico, Danica stirpe
progenito, in matrimonium dedit." John Worc., s.a. 925
(1: 130); ibid., 1: 117, 274; Wm. Malmes., Gesta Regum,
c. 126 (1: 136)] Since ASC(D) and John Worc. place the death of
Sitric in the next year after the marriage (s.a. 926) and he
actually died in 927 [AU s.a. 926=927], the marriage might belong
to 926. Roger of Wendover states that she remained a virgin and
lived in Pollesbury until her death on 15 July of an unknown year
["Ethelstanus, rex Anglorum, Eathgitam, sororem suam,
Sithrico Danica natione progenito, Northanhumbrorum regi,
matrimonio honorifice copulavit; ... Sancta itaque puella,
virginitate sibi reservata, apud Pollesberiam ... usque ad finem
vitæ suæ ...perseveravit; transiit autem post laudibilis vitæ
cursum ex hoc mundo ibidem idibus Julii, ..." Rog.
Wendover, s.a. 925 (1: 386); thanks to Todd Farmerie for pointing
out this reference]. She is called Eadgyth by Ralph de Diceto
("Eadchida"), Roger of Wendover, and the Book
of Hyde [see the Commentary section below]. The main reason for
doubting the name (other than the late sources) would be that
Eadweard already had another well documented daughter named
Eadgyth.

By Ælfflæd:

Ælfweard, d. prob. August 924, king
of Wessex?Ælfweard survived his father for only a
short period, only sixteen days according to the Worcester
manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ["Her
Eadweard cyning gefor on Myrcum æt Farndune. & Ælfweard his
sunu swyþe hraðe þæs gefor ymbe .xvi. dagas æt Oxanforda.
& hyra lic lið æt Wintanceastre." ASC(D) s.a. 924
("Here King Edward died at Farndon in Mercia; and very
soon, 16 days after, his son Ælfweard died at Oxford; and their
bodies lie at Winchester." ASC(Eng), 105); "Non
multo post filius ejus Ælfwardus apud Oxenfordam decessit, et
sepultus est ubi et pater illius." John Worc., s.a. 924
(1: 130)]. He is evidently the son called Æthelweard by William
of Malmesbury [see below]. Ælfweard is included as king in a
regnal list in the twelfth century manuscript Textus
Roffensis, which has him surviving for four weeks ["Ða
feng Ælfwerd Eadwardes sunu to & heold .iiii. wucan."
Dumville (1986), 29]. A reign by Ælfweard is also suggested by a
passage in the Hyde Register ["Quem etiam egregium
patrem duo pignora filiorum .Aeðeluuerdus. scilicet atque
.Aelfuuerdus. haud dispari gloria . in sepulterae consortio
secuti sunt . quorum unus clito . alter uero regalibus
infulis redimitus. inmatura ambo morte preuenti
sunt." Lib. Vit. Hyde, 6]. Birch suggested that the
phrase "regalibus infulis redimitus" may mean
that Ælfweard had been associated with his father as king [Lib.
Vit. Hyde, x]. The Book of Hyde has a passage about a supposed
son of Eadweard by Ecgwynn named "Elfredus"
who was said to be crowned during his father's lifetime but did
not long survive [Lib. Monast. Hyde, 113; see the Commentary
section below under Ælfred]. If there is any truth to this
story, it is probably a garbled tale about Ælfweard. [See also
Plummer, ASC 2: 121; Williams (1978), 149-151]

Eadwine, d. 933, under-king?The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that he died
at sea in 933 ["Her adranc Ædwinw æðeling onsæ."
ASC(E) s.a. 933]. Simeon of Durham states that this was at the
order of Æthelstan ["Rex Ethelstanus jussit Eadwinum
fratrem suum submergi in mare." Sim. Durh., Hist.Regum,
c. 83, s.a. 933 (2: 93); similarly, c. 107 (2: 124)]. William of
Malmesbury makes Æthelstan indirectly at fault in Eadwine's
drowning [Wm. Malmes., Gesta Regum, c. 139 (1: 156)].
Folcwine, a near contemporary who has the most detailed account
of Eadwine, confirms that Eadwine (whom he calls "rex")
was a brother of Æthelstan, states that his body washed up in
Flanders and was buried at Saint-Bertin [Folcwine, Gesta
Abbatum S. Bertini Sithiensium, c. 107, MGH SS 13: 629].
John of Worcester makes Eadwine a son of Eadweard by Eadgifu
[John Worc., 1: 117, 274]. Plummer explains Folcwine's
description of Eadwine as "rex" by suggesting
that he was under-king of Kent [Plummer, notes to ASC, 2: 137-8].

Æthelhild, a lay sister, bur. Wilton.[Wm. Malmes., Gesta Regum, c. 126
(1: 137) (see below); R. Diceto, Abbreviationes Chronicorum,
s.a. 900 (1: 140-1, see below)] David Kelley has suggested that
Æthelhild was married to a certain Ælfsige [Kelley (1989), 85;
see also Wood (2004), 452]. A certain Ælfsige and Æthelhild
appear as parents of an Ælfwine who received a grant from bishop
Æthelwold of Winchester in 975×8 ["Ælfwinum filium
Ælfsige et Æðelhildam matrem ipsius" Codex Dipl.
Sax. 6: 206 (#1347); see also "Æþelhild coniunx
Ælfsini comitis" Lib. Vit. Hyde, 58; Searle (1899),
395]. However, no convincing reason was offered why the
Æthelhild who was wife of Ælfsige should be identified with the
Æthelhild who was daughter of Eadweard the Elder.

Ælfgifu or Ealdgyth (Adiva);
m. NN, a prince near the Alps.
(see the Commentary section)In 929 or soon before, king Æthelstan sent
two of his sisters to king Heinrich I of Germany with the purpose
that one of them should marry his son Otto. Of the two girls,
Otto ended up marrying Eadgyth (see above). The other girl is
called Adiva by Hrotsvith von Gandersheim ["Necnon
germanam secum transmisit Adivam, ..." Gesta
Oddonis, line 112, MGH SS 4: 321]. According to the
chronicler Æthelweard, she married a king by the Jupiter
Mountains ["Alteram etiam subiunxit cuipiam regi iuxta
Iupitereos montes, de cuius prole nulla nobis notitia extat, ..."
Æthelweard, Prologue, 2, see above]. William of Malmesbury
states that she married a duke by the Alpes, which appears to be
essentially the same information (except for the title)
["... Edgitham et Elfgivam idem germanus misit Henrico
Alamannorum imperatori, quarum secundam Othoni filio ille
locavit, alteram cuidam duci juxta Alpes. Wm. Malmes. Gesta
Regum, c. 126 (1: 137), see below for a fuller quote; "...
Henricus, qui misit ad Athelstanum regem Anglorum pro duabus
sororibus suis Aldgitha et Edgitha; quarum posteriorem filio suo
Othoni collocavit, alteram cuidam duci juxta Alpes nuptum dedit."
ibid., c. 112 (1: 117)]. As can be seen from the above accounts,
there is some doubt about her name. Æthelweard does not give her
name. In his main account on the children of Eadweard, William of
Malmesbury erroneously gives her the name of Otto's wife Eadgyth.
Assuming the error secundam for primam, it
seems likely that he meant to say her name was Ælfgifu. However,
at another place he calls her Ealdgyth (this time getting the
name of Otto's wife right). Much ink has been used speculating on
the identity of this Alpine son-in-law of Eadweard, and numerous
candidates have been put forward, none of whom can be accepted
with a great deal of confidence. See the Commentary section for
more details.

Eadgifu (a supposed second daughter of this
name)
said to have m. Louis,
prince of Aquitaine (otherwise unknown).She is mentioned by William of Malmesbury
as a daughter of Eadweard and Eadgifu [Wm. Malmes. Gesta
Regum, c. 126 (1: 136-7), c. 135 (1: 149-150)]. Her name
invites doubt because there was already a well documented
daughter named Eadgifu (wife of Charles the Simple, above), and
because it was not common at that time for a child to be named
after a parent. Further doubt is invited by the fact that no
Louis of Aquitaine ("de genere Caroli magni superstes"
according to William) is known from other records. Richard
suggests that this Eadgifu is a confusion of the other Eadgifu,
mother of Louis IV [Richard (1903), 2: 475]. Suggested
identifications will be discussed below in the Commentary
section.

Commentary

The Wives and Children of Eadweard the
Elder

Several of the children of Eadweard the Elder
are documented by good tenth century evidence. This includes the
three sons who reigned, Æthelstan, Eadmund, and Eadred, and the
three daughters who made high profile marriages on the continent,
Eadgifu wife of Charles le Simple, Eadhild wife of Hugues le
Grand, and Eadgyth wife of Otto the Great. In addition, Ælfweard
and Eadwine and the daughter who married Sitric (who, however,
appears only in the Worcester manuscript) appear in the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle (and Eadwine also in Folcwine, a near contemporary
continental source), and Eadflæd and Eadburh appear in charters
(cited above). Also, the daughter who married a prince near the
Alps is well enough documented in tenth century sources, even if
the identity of her husband is not (see below for more on this).
The only early evidence for the mothers of these children comes
from charters, where Eadgifu appears as the mother of Eadmund and
Eadred [940: "Ego Eadmundus rex Anglorum ... Ego Eadgifu
ejusdem regis mater ..." Cart. Sax. 2: 492 (#763); 947:
"Ego Eadredus rex Anglorum ... Ego Eadgifu ejusdem regis
mater ..." ibid. 2: 585 (#820)].

A number of details are added by the
Anglo-Norman chroniclers of the twelfth century, and by other
even later sources. While there is no reason to doubt that this
information has generally come from earlier sources, there are
enough contradictions that the reliability of the information is
not always clear. What follows are extracts from some of these
sources.

Comparing William's main account with the
earlier sources, Æthelstan, Sitric's wife, Eadwine, Eadflæd,
Eadgifu, Eadhild, Eadmund, Eadred, and Eadburh all appear in
agreement with the earlier sources. So does Ælfweard, assuming
that he is the same as Æthelweard. The same is true for Otto's
wife and the wife of the Alpine prince, except for the confusion
of names. Since we know that Otto's wife was named Eadgyth, we
may suppose that William's main account accidently switched
Eadgyth and Ælfgifu (say by accidently writing secundam
in stead of primam), and this would leave Ælfgifu [c.
126] or Ealdgyth [c. 112] as the name (according to William) of
the wife of the Alpine prince [called Adiva by Hrotsvith
von Gandersheim: "Necnon germanam secum transmisit
Adivam, ..." Gesta Oddonis, line 112, MGH SS
4: 321; see below]. Of the children listed by William, this
leaves Æthelhild and the second Eadgifu undocumented in the
earlier sources. Since the list of children given by William
seems to stand up fairly well, there does not seem to be any
reason to doubt Æthelhild's existence (she is also mentioned by
Ralph de Diceto, see below). With the second Eadgifu, who seems
to appear only in sources depending directly or indirectly on
William, there is the problem that her husband Louis of Aquitaine
is also an otherwise unknown figure. This supposed marriage will
be discussed further below.

John of Worcester

John of Worcester gives a list of Eadweard's
children in the body of his chronicle and then repeats the same
list in his genealogical summary ["Ex muliere
nobilissima Ecgwyna filium suum primogenitum Æthelstanum, ex
regina autem sua Eadgiva filios tres Eadwinum, Eadmundum,
Eadredum, filiamque, Deo devotissimam virginem, Eadburgam,
tresque insuper habuit filias; quarum unam Otto, Romanorum
imperator octogesimus nonus, alteram vero in conjugem habuit rex
Occidentalium Francorum Karolus; ... tertiam autem filiam in
uxorem habuit rex Northanhymbrorum Sihtricus." John
Worc., s.a. 901 (1: 117), copied verbatim in Sim. Durh., Historia
Regum, c. 103 (2: 121); also in Rog. Hoveden 1: 51; "...
Eadwardus successit; cui regina sua Eadgiva tres filios,
Eadwinum, Eadmundum, Eadredum, et sanctam Eadburgam, ac tres
alias peperit filias, quarum unam in conjugem habuit Otto
imperator Romanorum, alteram Karolus rex Occidentalium Francorum,
tertiam Sihtricus rex Northhymbrorum. Æthelstanum autem filium
primogenitum de Ecgwyn, foemina nobilissima, habuit."
John Worc., 1: 274] Although John does not include Ælfweard when
he is listing Eadweard's children, he gives Ælfweard's obituary
at the appropriate place [ibid., s.a. 924 (1: 130)]. Ailred of
Rievaulx gives the same list of children, and apparently used
John or Simeon as a source [PL 195: 723]. John evidently had less
information than William of Malmesbury on Eadweard's children, as
he lists fewer children. In the original version of this page, I
had interpreted John as stating that the married daughters were
by Eadgifu, and noted that these three daughters were almost
certainly not the children of Eadgifu. However, the statement now
seems more ambiguous to me, and it might be that John was leaving
the mother(s) of these three daughters unstated. The most notable
difference between John of Worcester and the other accounts is
that he doesn't mention the second marriage to Ælflæd. This is
changed in the Bury St. Edmunds manuscript of John of Worcester's
history, where an interpolation gives the second marriage to
Alfleda, daughter of Ethelmus comitis, with children
Ethelward, Eduuin, Eadgyua (m. Otto), Eadhilda (m. Charles), St.
Eadgytha (m. Shtric), and Ealfgifa (m. Hugh) [John Worc. (Darlington
& McGurk, eds.), Appendix B, s.a. 901; information courtesy
of Todd Farmerie].

The Book of Hyde has an account of
Eadweard's children which mainly follows William of Malmesbury,
but also includes a supposed additional son Ælfred who ruled
with his father ["Iste gloriosus Edwardus duas habuit
uxores, et unam concubinam. Ex concubina, Egwynna nomine, genuit
Athelstanum, qui post ipsum regnavit, et Elfredum, et Edgytham,
quæ nupsit Sirichio regi Northanhymbrorum, quæ requiescit
Tamworthæ, et pro sancta colitur. ... Ex prima uxore sua,
videlicet Elfelmi comitis [filia], nomine Elfleda, genuit duos
filios, videlicet Ethelwardum, virum in literatura instructum,
qui tum non diu vixit, et Edwynum; et sex filias, scilicet,
Elfledam sanctam, et Deo dicatam, quæ apud Romesayam requiescit;
Edginam, quam dedit Karolo, regi Francorum, filio Lodowyci, filii
Karoli Calvi; Etheltildam, Deo dicatam, quæ Wyltoniæ
requiescit; Ethyldam, quam dedit pater Hugoni Capet, regi
Occidentalium Francorum; Edgitham et Elgimam misit Henrico,
Alemannorum imperatori maritandas, quarum secundam ille locavit
filio sui Othoni, alteram cuidam duci juxta Alpes. Ex uxore
secunda, Edgiva nomine, genuit Edwardus duos filios, Edmundum et
Edredum, qui ambo post Athelstanum regnaverunt; et duas filias,
sanctam Edburgam, Deo dicatam, [quæ] in monasterio monalium
Wyntoniæ requiescit; et Edgivam, quæ nupsit Aquitannorum
principi Lodowyco." Lib. Monast. Hyde, 111-3; also, a
recapitulation of the sons at pp. 113-4]. For Ælfred, see below.
A name (Eadgyth) is provided for Sitric's wife and she is called
a saint. Also different are the names given to some of the other
daughters. Thus, William of Malmesbury's Edfleda, buried at
Wilton, is replaced by the Book of Hyde's Elfleda, buried at
Romsey, Ethelhilda is called Etheltilda, the wife of Charles is
called Edgina, and one of the daughters sent to Heinrich is
called Elgima. Except for Ælfflæd (Elfleda), who is given by
some as a distinct daughter from Eadflæd, these differences need
not concern us [see under Ælfflæd below]. The Book of Hyde (Liber
Monasterii de Hyda: a Chronicle and Chartulary of Hyde Abbey,
Winchester, 455-1023, Rolls Series 45, London, 1866) is a different manuscript from that source which is
sometimes called the Hyde Register (Liber Vitae:
Register and Martyrology of New Minister and Hyde Abbey
Winchester, London, 1892). The latter source
has no list of the children of Eadweard, but has certain
individual notes on his children.

Pseudo-Ingulph

Pseudo-Ingulph's history of the monastery of
Croyland mentions the marriages of four sisters of Æthelstan,
evidently taken from William of Malmesbury ["Duae
sorores seniores imperatori Henrico commendantur; quarum primam
Othoni suo filio, secundam cuidam sui palatii magno principi
copulavit. Tertiam sororem Hugo rex Francorum suo filio suscepit.
Quartam, quae omnium sororum iunior erat et speciosissima,
Ludovicus princeps Aquitaniae in uxorem duxit."
Pseudo-Ingulph, Hist. monast. Croyland., MGH SS 10:
460n.]. The main difference here is the mistake that a daughter
is married to a son of Hugues Capet. This source has no
independent value.

Table of Eadweard's children in various
sources

The following table compares the lists of
Eadweard's children which appear in Æthelweard, William of
Malmesbury, John of Worcester, Ralph de Diceto, Roger of
Wendover, and the Book of Hyde. John of Worcester lists the
children in two places, in the main text of his history and in
his genealogical appendix, giving the same information in both
places. The other sources have one main place where the list of
children (in Æthelweard's case, daughters) is given. The
information from these lists is given in black in the table
below. Information in red is additional (or conflicting)
information which appears elsewhere in the same source. In the
column for John of Worcester, information in green are the
interpolations in the Bury St. Edmunds manuscript of that
history. There are four sections on the table, one for sons, one
for unmarried daughters, and two for married daughters. Since
these sources interchange the names of the married daughters with
respect to each other, each married daughter is listed twice,
sorted once by name, and once by husband's name (with the
confusion between Hugues le Grand and Hugues Capet ignored). The
numbers in parentheses show to which marriage the author
attributes the child, Ecgwynn (1), Ælflæd (2), or Eadgifu (3).

Æthelweard

William of
Malmesbury

Book of
Hyde

John of
Worcester

Ralph de
Diceto

Roger of
Wendover

Sons

Æthelstan

Ethelstan (1)

Athelstan (1)

Æthelstan (1)

Hathelstan (2)

Ethelstan (1)

Ælfweard

Elward

Ælfward

Æthelweard

Ethelward (2)

Ethelward (2)

Ethelward (2)

Ethelward (2)

Eadwine

Edwin (2)

Edwyn (2)

Eadwin (3) (2)

Ædwin (2)

Eadwin (2)

Eadmund

Edmund (3)

Edmund (3)

Eadmund (3)

Eadmund (3)

Eadmund (3)

Eadred

Edred (3)

Edred (3)

Eadred (3)

Ædred (3)

Eadred (3)

Ælfred

Elfred (1)

Unmarried daughters

Eadflæd

Edfleda (2)

Elfleda (2)

Eadfleda (2)

Eadfleda (2)

Æthelhild

Ethelhilda (2)

Etheltilda (2)

Æthelhilda (2)

Ethelhilda (2)

Eadburh

Edburga (3)

Edburga (3)

Eadburg (3)

Eadburga (3)

Married daughters by name

Eadgifu

Eadgyfu m. Charles

Edgifa (2) m. Charles

Edgina (2) m. Charles

Eadgyua (2) m.
Otto

Eadiva (2) m. Otto

Eggiva (2) m. Otto

Edgiva (3) m. Louis

Edgiva (3) m. Louis

Eadhild

Eadhild m. Hugues

Ethilda (2) m. Hugues

Ethylda (2) m. Hugues

Eadhilda (2) m.
Charles

Eadhilda (2) m. Charles

Eadhilda (2) m. Charles

Eadgyth

Eadgyde m. Otto

Edgitha (2) m. dk. Alps

Edgitha (2) m. dk. Alps

Eadgytha (2) m.
Sitric

Eadchida (2) m. Sitric

Edgitha (2) m. Sitric

Edgitha m. Otto

Edgytha (1) m. Sitric

Ælfgifu

Elfgiva (2) m. Otto

Elgima (2) m. Otto

Ealfgifa (2) m.
Hugues

Ealfgifa (2) m. Hugues

Algiva (2) m. Hugues

Ealdgyth

Aldgitha m. dk.
Alps

NN

NN m. k. Jup. Mtn.

NN (1) m. Sitric

NN m. Otto
NN m. Charles
NN m. Sitric

Æthelswith (error)

Ethelswitha m.
Baldwin

Married daughters by husband

Otto the Great

Eadgyde

Elfgiva (2) Edgitha

Elgima (2)

NN

Eadiva (2)

Eggiva (2)

k. Jup. Mtn.
dk. Alps

NN

Edgitha (2) Aldgitha

Edgitha (2)

Charles the Simple

Eadgyfu

Edgifa (2)

Edgina (2)

NN

Eadhilda (2)

Eadhilda (2)

Hugues
(Capet or le Grand)

Eadhild

Ethilda (2)

Ethylda (2)

Ealfgifa (2)

Algiva (2)

Sitric

NN (1)

Edgitha (1)

NN

Eadchida (2)

Edgitha (2)

Louis "of Aquitaine"

Edgiva (3)

Edgiva (3)

From the comparisons given on this table, it
appears that the Book of Hyde used William of Malmesbury as its
main source, but also had at least one other source. The accounts
of Ralph de Diceto and Roger of Wendover are similar, and
probably go back to a common source, with Roger having accidently
omitted Eadburh, and with Ralph having made a more serious
mistake on Æthelstan. There was obviously confusion about the
names of the daughters, which may explain why John of Worcester
does not try to name them. As noted in the following comments,
some of the children given in these sources can be removed from
the list.

Æthelweard. (existence as a son distinct from Ælfweard
unclear)The appearance of a son of this name in
William of Malmesbury's main list of the children of Eadweard [Secundus
filius Edwardi fuit Ethelwardus ex Elfleda filia Ethelmi comitis,
litteris apprime institutus, multumque Elfredum avum vultu et
moribus præferens, sed cita post genitorem morte subtractus."
Wm. Malmes. Gesta Regum, c. 126 (1: 136-7)] is
apparently intended to be the same person as Ælfweard, who
appears elsewhere in the same work [ibid., c. 131 (1: 141), c.
139 (1: 156)]. Of more concern is the appearance of Æthelweard
and Ælweard as distinct sons in the Hyde Register ["...
duo pignora filiorum .Aeðeluuerdus. scilicet atque .Aelfuuerdus.
..." Lib. Vit. Hyde, 6]. Nevertheless, it seems likely
that this supposed son Æthelweard is either a confusion with
Eadweard's brother Æthelweard or with his son Ælfweard. In
fact, the appearance of Eadweard's brother Æthelweard in
charters seems to invite confusion, as he is called filius
regis in some charters of Eadweard [Cart. Sax. 2: 241-2
(#594), 244 (#595), 247 (#596), 249 (#597), 251 (#598), 253
(#600), 257 (#602), 261 (#604), 271 (#611), 273 (#612), 275
(#613)] and frater regis in others [ibid., 285 (#620),
289 (#621), 293 (#623), 295 (#624), 298 (#625), 303 (#628)].
Since the filius regis Æthelweard never appears in the
same charter as the frater regis Æthelweard, we are
undoubtedly seeing the same man here, with his appearances as filius
regis to be interpreted as "son of the [former] king
[Ælfred]."

Ælfthryth (Ælfþryð, Elftrude) of Wessex, said to have d. 7
June 929. (in fact a
sister)
m. Baldwin
II, d. 918, count/marquis of
Flanders, 879-918.Annales Elnonenses err in stating
that Baldwin's wife "Helfeth" and Ogiva,
wife of Charles the Simple, were daughters of king Adelwardus
of the English ["Balduinus, nepos Caroli Calvi, et
Carolus, filius Ludowici, uxores duxerunt filias Adelwardi regis
Anglorum, Carolus Ogivam, Balduinus sororem eius Helfeth nomine."
Ann. Elnonenses, Grierson (1937), 149]. The same mistake
is made on one occasion by William of Malmesbury [see above].

Ælfflæd (Elfleda), d. ca. 963, nun. (no reason to believe she was distinct
from Eadflæd)Ælfflæd is given as a daughter distinct
from Eadflæd by Weir, who states that "Elfleda" became
a nun at Winchester, died there ca. 963, and was buried at Wilton
Abbey, Wiltshire [Weir (1989), 13]. As noted above, the Book of
Hyde lists Ælfflæd as a daughter of Eadweard, and states that
she was buried at Romsey. This burial may have been taken from
William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificum, where William
states that a virgin Elfleda was buried at Romsey, but that he
did not know her history [Wm. Malmes., Gesta Pont., c.
78 (p. 175)]. Thus, there does not seem to be any reason to
believe that Ælfflæd had any existence distinct from Eadflæd.

The "King near the Jupiter
Mountains" and "Louis of Aquitaine"

Two sons-in-law of Eadweard have been the
subject of much speculation. One, the king near the Jupiter
Mountains (or duke near the Alps), appears in tenth century
records, and his existence as a son-in-law of Eadweard can at
least be considered certain, even if his identity is unclear. The
other, an otherwise unknown prince Louis of Aquitaine, appears
only in records of the twelfth century and later, and the
possibility must be considered that he did not exist, or that he
was the same person as the king near the Jupiter Mountains. A
further complication is that the secondary sources, in mentioning
supposed daughters and sons-in-law of Eadweard, often without
evidence, do not always make it clear whether a claimed
son-in-law is supposed to be the same as the king near the
Jupiter Mountains or Louis of Aquitaine.

In 929, when king Heinrich I of Germany was
negotiating to marry his son Otto to one of Eadweard's daughters,
Eadweard actually sent two of his daughters to Germany. Of these
two girls, the elder Eadgyth ended up marrying Otto, later the
emperor Otto I, known as "the Great". The younger
daughter was called "Adiva" by Hrotsvith von
Gandersheim (tenth century), who does not tell us of her fate
["Necnon germanam secum transmisit Adivam, ..."
Gesta Oddonis, line 112, MGH SS 4: 321]. Writing late in
the tenth century, the chronicler Æthelweard, in the prologue to
his work addressed to his cousin Mathilde in Germany, states that
Otto chose to marry Eadgyth, and that the other daughter, whose
name is not given, was married to a certain king near the Jupiter
Mountains ["Alias vero duas Ædestanus rex tali ratione
misit ad Oddonem, ut quæ ab eis placuisset sibi in matrimonium
elegisset; cui uisa melior Eadgyde, ex qua tu principium tenes
natiuitatis. Alteram etiam subiunxit cuipiam regi iuxta
Iupitereos montes, de cuius prole nulla nobis notitia extat, tam
pro extenso spatio, quam per obruptionem quodam modo temporum;
..." Æthelweard, Prologue, 2]. A. Campbell, the editor
of Æthelweard's chronicle, translated this as "a certain
king near the Alps." Poole and Hlawitschka interpreted this
as mons Jovis, the Great St. Bernhard [Poole (1911),
313; Hlawitschka (1976), 54]. Referring to the same marriage,
William of Malmesbury twice refers to the husband as a certain dux
near the Alps. As noted above, he appears to use the names "Elfgiva"
and "Aldgitha" for her on those two occasions.

Looking beyond the confusion regarding the name
of this daughter, it will be convenient to have something to call
her in the discussions below, so we will use the name Adiva, the
form used by Hrotsvith. Hlawitschka noted that Eadgyth's name
appears in Hrotsvith's work under various forms, but always
without the "g" [Hlawitschka (1976), 52 n. 111; "Eaditham"
Gesta Oddonis, line 77, MGH SS 4: 320; "Edita"
line 86, p. 321; "Eadit" line 118, p. 321;
"Eadithae" line 597, p. 330]. This suggests
that the Anglo-Saxon form of Adiva's name also had a
"g" in it, and that her name was therefore Eadgifu. The
problem is that Eadweard may have had two other daughters named
Eadgifu, at least according to William of Malmesbury. Eadgifu as
the name of the wife of Charles the Simple is well attested in
two tenth century sources and numerous later sources ["Ottogeba"
Flodoard, Annales, s.a. 951, 132; "Eadgyfu"
Æthelweard, Prologue, 2; see Lauer (1900), 9 n. 4]. Another
supposed Eadgifu, alleged wife of a Louis of Aquitaine, according
to the twelfth century William of Malmesbury, is more
problematic. She is allegedly named after her mother Eadgifu,
which is extremely uncommon during that period. (Note that the
other Eadgifu, wife of Charles, was daughter of Ælfflæd.) There
is also considerable doubt about the identity of Louis of
Aquitaine. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that William of
Malmesbury was mistaken about Adiva (his Ælfgifu/Ealdgyth) being
different from Eadgifu wife of Louis, and that they should be
identified [Hlawitschka (1976); Mathieu (2006), with a different
identification based upon essentially the same evidence].

Thus, there is little evidence to work with
regarding the identity of Adiva's husband, and it is therefore
not surprising that several candidates have surfaced in the
literature. Since Adiva was evidently of marriageable age when
she was available as one of the two choices for Otto I in his
choice of a bride, it is likely that her marriage occurred not
long after 929, and a marriage before 940 is highly probable.
This alone is enough to cast doubt on two of the candidates,
Conrad of Burgundy and Boleslav II of Bohemia. Other candidates
for sons-in-law of Eadweard which do not involve Adiva have come
about from attempts to identify the unknown "Louis of
Aquitaine" as being either a known Louis (e.g., the emperor
Louis the Blind) or someone from Aquitaine (e.g., Ebles). In the
list of hypothsized scenarios given below, we have tried to
separate them into scenarios identifying the king near the
Jupiter Mountains, scenarios identifying Louis of Aquitaine, and
scenarios in which both are simultaneously identified with some
individual. However, the distinction between these three
categories is not always clear, and investigations have been
further impeded by not knowing what the underlying evidence is in
some cases. Of the conjectured sons-in-law listed below, none can
be considered proven. Hlawitschka's conjecture (listed first) is
the most likely one to have some basis in fact.

Scenarios in which the "King near
the Jupiter Mountains" is identified with "Louis of
Aquitaine"
(i.e., Adiva is identified with the second Eadgifu)

Conjectured son-in-law (possible): Louis, fl. 929, count, son of Rodolphe I, king of Burgundy.
Louis is an obscure count who appears in a handful of documents,
whose existence as a younger son of Rodolphe I of Burgundy was
pointed out by Chaume [Chaume (1925), 382 n. 3, 552-3; see also
Hlawitschka (1976), 51-2]. Hlawitshcka conjectured that the
"Lodowicus Aquitanorum princeps" was a mistake
for "Alamannorum princeps" and that this
Louis, son of Rodolphe, was the king/duke near the Alps mentioned
by Æthelweard and William of Malmesbury [Hlawitschka (1976),
52-5].

Conjectured son-in-law (existence
uncertain): Louis,
supposed son of Rodolphe II,
king of Burgundy.
Louis is known only from Aubry de Troisfontaines (thirteenth
century), who, after mentioning the marriage of Rodolphe II with
Bertha of Swabia, states: "Habuerat antea uxorem aliam
Emmam nomine, de qua tulit filium Ludovicum, qui vivente patre
decessit." [Aubry de Troisfontaines, Chronica,
s.a. 923, MGH SS 23: 757]. Relying in part on the arguments of
Hlawitschka, Mathieu identifies "Lodowicus Aquitanorum
princeps" with the supposed son of Rodolphe II [Mathieu
(2006), 81 & n. 22, 85 & n. 43, 86 & n. 44]. Coming
from such a late source, even the existence of this Louis does
not inspire much confidence.

Scenarios suggesting an identification
of the "King near the Jupiter Mountains" (husband of
Adiva)

Conjectured son-in-law (very
improbable):
Conrad, d. 19 October 993, king of Burgundy.According to Reginald Poole, the only
person who satisfied the description of being a king near the
mountains of Jupiter was Conrad the Peaceable, king of Burgundy
[Poole (1911), 314]. This, combined with the fact that Conrad
names his first wife Adelane in a Cluny charter dated 23 March
963 ["... pro remedio nostræ animæ, Adelane videlicet
reginæ et infantum nostrorum, ..." Cart. Cluny 2: 242
(#1152)], led Poole to suggest that this Adelane was the same
person as Elfgiva or Aldgitha, Edward's daughter [Poole (1911),
315]. However, the suggested link is chronologically very
improbable. In fact, Conrad's second wife, Mathilde, daughter of
Louis IV of France, was a grandniece of Adiva. (For Mathilde, see
the page of her mother Gerberga.)

Conjectured son-in-law (long
chronology, unconvincing):
Boleslav II, d. 7 February 999, duke of Bohemia.The theory that Adiva married Boleslav II
of Bohemia was reported in a 1965 article by Bernard Orna [Orna
(1965); thanks are due to Peter Stewart for sending a copy of the
article, and to Todd Farmerie, for earlier giving an outline],
who attributed the hypothesis to Dr. Pavel Radoměrský of the
National Museum in Prague. The author describes and gives an
illustration of a Bohemian coin having a figure of a woman and an
inscription which reads "+V+DIVƎ+V" around the
circumference of the coin. Since letters on coins were frequently
upside-down or backwards during that period, Orna states that
Radoměrský would see the inscription as reading
"ADIVEA", with the first and last "V"
representing an "A". Thus, the coins would supposedly
name Eadweard's daughter Adiva, further identified with
Boleslav's queen Emma/Hemma (d. 1006), who is known from the
chronicler Cosmas [Cosmas, Chron. Boemorum, i, 33, MGH
SS 9: 55; obit. at ibid., i, 39, s.a. 1006, p. 62] and from coins
[Fiala (1889), 16]. This last identification is made on the
strength of the supposition that Elfgifa (i.e., Ælfgifu) was the
English form of Emma (Elfgifa having previously been given as the
English form of Adiva's name). However, even though there was a
queen who was known as both Ælfgifu and Emma (Emma of Normandy,
wife successively of Æthelred II and Cnut), the names Emma and
Ælfgifu are not interchangeable in general. Also, as noted
above, identifying Ælfgifu as the English form of Adiva's name
requires an emendation of William of Malmesbury. The known
Anglo-Saxon features of some of the coinage of Boleslav II
suggests some sort of connection between England and Bohemia
during the late tenth century [see Fiala (1889), 13-15, showing a
number of coins of Boleslav II in the type of Æthelred II], but
even if that connection was a royal marriage, there seems to be
no convincing reason to place it in the generation of Eadweard's
children. Indeed, the chronology of this theory seems rather
long, especially if Boleslav is being suggested as the husband of
Adiva, who, as noted above, almost certainly married before 940.
Boleslav II succeeded his father Boleslav I as duke on 15 July
967 [Cosmas, Chron. Boemorum, i, 21, MGH SS 9: 48], and
did not die until 7 February 999 [ibid., i, 33, MGH SS 9: 56].
Thus, his floruit seems rather late for a supposed husband of
Adiva, although too little is known about his birthdate to rule
out the relationship on this basis alone. Thus, the evidence for
this relationship seems very weak.

Conjectured son-in-law (basis
unknown): Hugues,
de Vienne.Besly states that Adiva's husband could
have been Hugues de Vienne ["Ce pourroit estre Hugues de
Vienne, que Flodoard nomme Dux Turonensis et Cisalpinus,
environ ce temps-là." Besly (1840), 65]. The only Hugues de
Vienne whom I could find in Flodoard was Hugues, d. 947, count of
Vienne, marquis of Provence, king of Italy [for whom see the page
of his mother Bertha]. He seems like a very improbable husband for Adiva.

Conjectured son-in-law (basis
unknown): Charles
Constantine, count of Vienne, 931.Charles Constantine is mentioned as a
possible identification of the king near the Jupiter Mountains in
the Handbook of British Chronology, but with no
indication of the reasons, and no references [HBC 25; also
mentioned by Weir (1989), 13, also without references, where
Charles Constantine is called "King of Arles"].
Difficult to judge without knowing the evidence, this conjecture
is perhaps related to the conjecture that Charles Constantine's
father Louis the Blind was a son-in-law of Eadweard [see below].
Perhaps some author was trying to get rid of the chronological
problems of that conjecture by shifting the marriage by a
generation. If so, it would seem like a weak basis from which to
proceed.

Conjectured son-in-law (false): Eberhard, d. ca. 960, count of
Nordgau.In 1770, Rudolph Coronini attributed
Eberhard (sometimes called Eberhard IV) as the husband of Eadiva,
sister of Eadgyth, wife of Otto the Great, stating that there
should be no cause for doubt, because "emperor" (i.e.,
king) Heinrich I repeatedly called Eberhard his propinquus
["Eberhardus IV. Alsatiæ Comes Hugonis I. filius
primogenitus conjugio sibi copulavit Eadivam Anglorum Regis
filiam, sororem Edgitæ Uxoris Ottonis M. Romanorum Imperatoris;
quæ conjunctio haud dubie causa fuerit, quod subinde Henricus
Auceps Imperator Eberhardum nostrum propinquum suum appellaverit."
Coronini (1770), 20; this reference is courtesy of Peter
Stewart]. Now, a count Eberhard is called a propinquus
by Heinrich I in 927 [MGH DD H I 52 (#16)] and a consanguineus
in 929 [ibid., 57 (#21)]. However, this would not be Eberhard of
Nordgau, but Heinrich's brother-in-law Eberhard, husband of
Amalrada, a sister of Heinrich's wife Mathilde [see Sigebert, Vita
Deoderici I, MGH SS 4: 464]. Furthermore, even if the
identification of Eberhard had been correct, being the husband of
a sister of the wife of a son of Heinrich would in no way explain
the relationship of propinquus or consanguineus.
Thus, Coronini's conjecture has no reasonable basis whatsoever.
Eberhard's wife has more commonly been identified as Liutgard,
daughter of Wigeric and Cunégonde (see their pages). Coronini's source for much of the
early Hapsburg genealogy was the 1680 work of Johann Ludwig
Schönleben, but it is not clear whether or not that was his
source for the wife of Eberhard [Johann Ludwig Schönleben, Dissertatio
Polemica de prima origine Augustissimae domus
Habsburgo-Austriacæ (Laibach, 1680), which I have not seen
(reference pointed out by Peter Stewart); see Coronini (1770),
9-10]. The false claim of Eberhard's marriage to a daughter of
Eadweard has sometimes been picked up by modern secondary sources
[e.g., Weir (1989), 14, no source cited].

Conjectured son-in-law
(pure guesswork): Burkhard, fl. 928, count of Zürichgau.[Chaume (1931), 150 n. 4, 161] As a part of
a series of conjectures placing Burkhard as the possible grandfather
of Alduid, mother of Humbert "aux Blanches-Mains", count
of Savoie, Chaume suggests the marriage of Burkhard to Adiva in order
to explain the "exotic" name Alduid. There is no good
reason to accept this guess.

Scenarios suggesting an identification
of "Louis of Aquitaine" (husband of the second Eadgifu)

Conjectured son-in-law (false): Louis III "the Blind", d.
prob. 928, king of Provence, emperor.[Stubbs, intro. to Wm. Malmes., Gesta
Regum, 2: lii-liii] William of Malmesbury's description of
Louis "of Aquitaine" as a descendant of Charlemagne
would seem to encourage his identification with Louis the Blind,
but the identification is not chronologically believable. When
Louis the Blind died, any daughter of Eadweard by his marriage to
Eadgifu would not have been of marriageable age. Trying to make a
daughter of one of Eadweard's earlier marriages into a wife of
Louis the Blind would abandon the testimony of William of
Malmesbury, who is the sole independent authority for the alleged
marriage. [See also Poupardin (1901), 314-9]

Conjectured son-in-law (false): Ebles, d. 935, count of Poitou.[Besly (1840), 65-6] This theory is based
on the statement of William of Malmesbury (and sources following
him) that the second Eadgifu married prince Louis of Aquitaine.
Since a Louis of Aquitaine is unknown, the assumption that the
"of Aquitaine" is correct but "Louis" was a
mistake leads to Ebles as the count of Poitou (and perhaps also
duke of Aquitaine) who was active during the relevant period.
Ebles had two known wives, Aremburge and Emillane, of whom the
second was living in 911 [Richard (1903), 73]. Thus, there would
be chronological room for a third marriage if there were any
evidence to justify it. But such a marriage is chronologically
very improbable. Ebles is estimated to have been about 65 when he
died in 935 [Richard (1903), 72], and a daughter of Eadweard by
Eadgifu would be in her teens at the oldest at the time of the
death of Ebles. Thus, since the best (and only)
"evidence" for the relationship involves the serious
emendation of a late source, the connection can be safely
rejected. [See also Richard (1903), 2: 474ff., for a detailed
argument against the claim that Ebles married a daughter of
Eadweard.]

John Worc. = Benjamin Thorpe, ed., Florentii
Wigorniensis monachi chronicon ex chronicis, 2 vols.,
(London, 1848-9). (The work formerly attributed to Florence of
Worcester is now generally attributed to John of Worcester.) Also
edited more recently in Darlington & McGurk, eds., The
Chronicle of John of Worcester, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1995-). I
do not have easy access to the latter edition, and most of the
citations are given from Thorpe's edition.

Kelley (1989) = David H. Kelley, "The
House of Aethelred", in Lindsay L. Brook, ed., Studies
in Genealogy and Family History in Tribute to Charles Evans On
the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (Association for the
Promotion of Scholarship in Genealogy, Occasional Publication No.
2, Salt Lake City, 1989), 63-93.

Rog. Hoveden = William Stubbs, ed., Chronica
Magistri Rogeri de Houedene, 4 vols. (Rolls Series 51,
1868-71). For an English translation, see Henry T. Riley, trans.,
The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 2 vols. (London, 1853).
Citations are from the edition of Stubbs.

Revision uploaded 23 June 2010, giving additions and
corrections thanks to comments on the original version by Todd
Farmerie and Peter Stewart which
appeared on soc.genealogy.medieval. Changes were made to the
sections on Sitric's wife, John of Worcester, the false son
Ælfred, and sons-in-law Boleslav II and Eberhard, and the
account of Roger of Wendover was added. Also, a table was added
comparing the various sources on Eadweard's children.

Minor revision uploaded 25 June 2010. Additions were made to
the section on Boleslav II, with thanks to Peter Stewart
for sending me a copy of the Orna article. Also, interpolations
from the Bury St. Edmunds manuscript of John of Worcester, along
with a few other miscellaneous additions, were added courtesy of
comments by Todd Farmerie.